Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Team Discussions regarding games, players, coaches, or anything else related to Buccaneer Football.
post

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby real bucs fan » Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:18 pm

MJWs Jason Licht as Fred Flinstone line had me lol'ing
Image
real bucs fan
 
Posts: 5300
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:59 pm
Has thanked: 517 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Doctor » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:56 am

MJW wrote:
Caradoc wrote:First off, let's level-set here - I was not an advocate of drafting Aguayo (at least earlier than the 5th or 6th). When we traded up I felt certain, like many others, that we would draft Vonn Bell, and thought that was the smart move there.

Now:

Watching you numbskulls arguing this over and over and repeatedly missing the point is depressing. Doctor is making a very simple point, which you are missing so completely that it almost seems like some form of "community Bootzing."

The first mistake you are making is you need to work on your English skills. Specifically the fact that there is a significant difference between the word "CAN", and the word "WILL". Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you will. Just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is GUARANTEED. But you all say "you can get a good kicker in FA", but what you are really insisting is that you WILL get one in FA. If that was the case, every team would have a good kicker because "you can get them in FA". You all seem to refuse to acknowledge that you also CAN get a really crappy kicker in FA. This is an extremely important point that you totally dismiss as irrelevant, or a minor concern at best. Also note that the only position that you generally CAN'T get a good player in FA is at QB, so saying "you can get a kicker in FA" as some kind of unique positional trait is bunk You can get a good DE in FA, you can get a good WR, etc..

Second thing is, you are vastly over simplifying the draft. It is not as simple as "you have to draft here to get a good safety/LB/CB." Or "This position is the best bet in Round X". While when we talk about the draft we tend to make those oversimplifications, but once you get past the very beginning of the draft, those generalizations become less and less accurate very very quickly. You draft people not just on the positional value, but also on what you think their ceiling is, and the probability they will reach that ceiling. (To be sure there are many other things, but these are the big ones for this particular discussion).

So, how to explain? Well, since there are so many fans of PFFs "magical math" here I'll use some arbitrary math here (but I won't pretend the numbers are accurate or have any real meaning other than to illustrate a point).

Lets look at 1) Vonn Bell, who I think everyone would have been OK with had we moved up there and was expecting us to, and 2) Aguayo, who we did draft. When you are looking at building your team, you have a certain valuation at different positions. You may have a number or just a general sense, but you value positions differently. So lets say that Licht values an "average" player at the safety position as an 6, and at the kicking position as a 4. Nothing unusual. But then he looks at the players available and grades what they think their ceiling might be, and he grades out Bell as having a ceiling of being "good to very good" and that gives him a new value of 8. He grades Aguayo's ceiling as "perennial All-pro to HOF" Which shoots him up to 8 as well. Now they are both looking about equal value to him as far as the future success of the team. Then he looks at whether he thinks someone will actually hit that ceiling. We all know he loved Aguayo's personality ho he gives him a close to 100% chance there, keeping him at 8. Bell he likes, but doesn't have that all-in confidence so he says 75%, and now Bell is a 6. (this scenario would theoretically play out with every other player on the board at the time with Aguayo 'winning' every time, draft choices are not solid numbers on a chart, they are relative to all the other options available at that moment.) So he chooses to go with what he thought was a "Sure thing, great player" at a lesser positional value, rather than "possibly very good but possibly not so good" player elsewhere.

Now obviously these numbers are not real or used they just serve to illustrate the weighing of different factors, (I'm sure there is no "Percent likeliehood of hitting ceiling conversion table"), and this is still an oversimplification , but this is generally along the lines of what has to be considered. When Licht picked, he felt he had among the highest ceilings and highest likelihood of hitting it. We are talking late second round here, so this is beyond a crapshoot. Having a great kicker is a huge boon to a team. Yes, so is having a great safety. But it's clear he was confronted with choices that he didn't feel super confident would excel, but he absolutely believed Aguayo was a lock to be special. So rather than **** around with various kickers until he got the right one, he wanted to lock that in. And theoretically then, the drafting was sound. What sucked was the execution, as Aguayo had already shown he was regressing. Had Aguayo been 100% inside 40 for us this season, and average beyond that, we would have been in the playoffs and would never be worrying about kicker again, which would be absolutely worth it.

[TL;DR]Licht thought he saw something special, and took a guy at an arguably "less value" (though I'd argue that) position because he thought he had an incredibly high ceiling, and was a guarantee to hit it and not bust over guys he thought had lower ceilings with lower chances to hit them. That's the point you are missing. A guaranteed stud at one spot, vs a maybe, possibly, above average guy elsewhere.


This is a good write-up, but there are two key points that invalidate it.

One, when you consider all the factors you're using to defend the decision (theoretically), and then remember how often "special" kickers turn into fool's gold in the NFL, it makes it harder to operate from the "he saw something special" defense. Evaluating kickers SHOULD be straight-forward, but any study of the position yields it's even harder than position players.

Two, even if everything else you're saying is true, the margin between "a great kicker" and "a good kicker" is nominal. Depending on how you want to define these terms, I'd argue you're talking about changing the outcome of a few snaps a year out of thousands. And that's again, keeping in mind point #1 - Licht should have been LESS sure he was getting a "special" talent at kicker than he could reasonably be at any other position.

On the other hand, the difference between an "above average" safety and an "average" safety is going to subtly and directly influence every single defensive snap if you think about it. It's going to change what an offense is comfortable running against us, and what we're comfortable calling against them.

So...stupid pick...for so many reasons. My hope is that Jason Licht talked it over with Wilma and Barney and agreed not to let Gazoo make any more decisions for the franchise.


First point is a lie. It's the lie everyone here and every FO tells themselves. "Evaluating" is most guesswork mixed with luck. It's a mythical "talent" that is real only because everyone believes it is real. The reality is we only do it because we have nothing better and it beats doing nothing. It's the sports equivalent of faith and prayer.

Second, a good kicker is way better than a bad one. Which is what we had before (and may have now too). Again, you make this point like you can just walk into FA and pick up a good to great kicker. If that's the case what has every NFL GM with crap kickers waiting for? Or why are there crap kickers at all?

MY point was simple. That many here like yourself hold kicker to a stupid standard of HOF or not worth it. And that somehow rolling the dice on another position is "better" simply just because. Tell me how a bust safety is better than a bust kicker? Or the way some of you make it sound, how is a bust safety better than a not-HOF second round kicker? You guys make it sound like it is. It is not. Now, unfortunately we will never know who we would have drafted if it wasn't Roberto, so we have no way of "seeing if it was the right call" or know if the "other" player would have been a bust, serviceable, average or elite. We simply don't know who it would've been. But just for fun lets assume it was Bell like MJW and many other seem to think. Lets just follow it through, see how Bell's career goes.

Here's another question to keep things going. Knowing everything you know now, who would you have drafted in the second round of 2011 Bowers or Dan Bailey? That's it, no other choices, no "I would've drafted someone else and signed Bailey as a UDFA", none of that. Two options, it's 2011, second round, you can hand in a card for Bowers or Bailey, which one do you hand in?
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Naismith » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:29 am

Bowers, and it's not even remotely close.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Doctor » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:36 am

Naismith wrote:Bowers, and it's not even remotely close.

And that right there sums up this thread.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Naismith » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:39 am

Doctor wrote:
Naismith wrote:Bowers, and it's not even remotely close.

And that right there sums up this thread.


I completely agree.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Buc2 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:05 pm

Doctor wrote:First point is a lie. It's the lie everyone here and every FO tells themselves. "Evaluating" is most guesswork mixed with luck. It's a mythical "talent" that is real only because everyone believes it is real. The reality is we only do it because we have nothing better and it beats doing nothing. It's the sports equivalent of faith and prayer.

Second, a good kicker is way better than a bad one. Which is what we had before (and may have now too). Again, you make this point like you can just walk into FA and pick up a good to great kicker. If that's the case what has every NFL GM with crap kickers waiting for? Or why are there crap kickers at all?

MY point was simple. That many here like yourself hold kicker to a stupid standard of HOF or not worth it. And that somehow rolling the dice on another position is "better" simply just because. Tell me how a bust safety is better than a bust kicker? Or the way some of you make it sound, how is a bust safety better than a not-HOF second round kicker? You guys make it sound like it is. It is not. Now, unfortunately we will never know who we would have drafted if it wasn't Roberto, so we have no way of "seeing if it was the right call" or know if the "other" player would have been a bust, serviceable, average or elite. We simply don't know who it would've been. But just for fun lets assume it was Bell like MJW and many other seem to think. Lets just follow it through, see how Bell's career goes.

Here's another question to keep things going. Knowing everything you know now, who would you have drafted in the second round of 2011 Bowers or Dan Bailey? That's it, no other choices, no "I would've drafted someone else and signed Bailey as a UDFA", none of that. Two options, it's 2011, second round, you can hand in a card for Bowers or Bailey, which one do you hand in?


There's another level to all this crap that isn't being addressed. As we all know, the reason for the trade up was simple. Licht/Koetter really wanted Aguayo and didn't think he'd be there (for whatever reason???) if they waited until their next available pick (#74 overall). So they made that trade to get back up into the 2nd round to get their kicker. Period. The odds are probably very high they wouldn't have traded up at all had Aguayo already been gone or hadn't declared early and stayed at FSU for his senior year. So people can sit here and say they threw away a 2nd round pick all they want but that doesn't make it true. Especially when you consider we wouldn't have even had that 2nd had they not traded back up. Now people can argue they threw away a 3rd all day long. But throwing away a 3rd isn't quite as dramatic, is it? So if people want to ask who we potentially gave up, they need to ask who could have been selected with that 3rd round pick (#74 overall) not the 2nd they traded up to (#59 overall). And I'll be honest...looking at the 10-15 players selected after #73 overall, none of em are jumping off the page at me. At least not yet anyway. But I will admit that I don't follow other teams drafted players all that closely.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7229
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 707 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Naismith » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:28 pm

Not sure what you're trying to say but the Bucs used a second round pick or a third and a fourth for Aguayo. Either description is accurate. Saying they wasted just a third is not accurate.

EDIT: And the part about the next 10-15 players isn't super relevant since who knows if any would have been on the Bucs board, but it's actually a very strong group of players.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby MJW » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:25 pm

Doctor wrote:
MJW wrote:
This is a good write-up, but there are two key points that invalidate it.

One, when you consider all the factors you're using to defend the decision (theoretically), and then remember how often "special" kickers turn into fool's gold in the NFL, it makes it harder to operate from the "he saw something special" defense. Evaluating kickers SHOULD be straight-forward, but any study of the position yields it's even harder than position players.

Two, even if everything else you're saying is true, the margin between "a great kicker" and "a good kicker" is nominal. Depending on how you want to define these terms, I'd argue you're talking about changing the outcome of a few snaps a year out of thousands. And that's again, keeping in mind point #1 - Licht should have been LESS sure he was getting a "special" talent at kicker than he could reasonably be at any other position.

On the other hand, the difference between an "above average" safety and an "average" safety is going to subtly and directly influence every single defensive snap if you think about it. It's going to change what an offense is comfortable running against us, and what we're comfortable calling against them.

So...stupid pick...for so many reasons. My hope is that Jason Licht talked it over with Wilma and Barney and agreed not to let Gazoo make any more decisions for the franchise.


First point is a lie. It's the lie everyone here and every FO tells themselves. "Evaluating" is most guesswork mixed with luck. It's a mythical "talent" that is real only because everyone believes it is real. The reality is we only do it because we have nothing better and it beats doing nothing. It's the sports equivalent of faith and prayer.

Second, a good kicker is way better than a bad one. Which is what we had before (and may have now too). Again, you make this point like you can just walk into FA and pick up a good to great kicker. If that's the case what has every NFL GM with crap kickers waiting for? Or why are there crap kickers at all?

MY point was simple. That many here like yourself hold kicker to a stupid standard of HOF or not worth it. And that somehow rolling the dice on another position is "better" simply just because. Tell me how a bust safety is better than a bust kicker? Or the way some of you make it sound, how is a bust safety better than a not-HOF second round kicker? You guys make it sound like it is. It is not. Now, unfortunately we will never know who we would have drafted if it wasn't Roberto, so we have no way of "seeing if it was the right call" or know if the "other" player would have been a bust, serviceable, average or elite. We simply don't know who it would've been. But just for fun lets assume it was Bell like MJW and many other seem to think. Lets just follow it through, see how Bell's career goes.

Here's another question to keep things going. Knowing everything you know now, who would you have drafted in the second round of 2011 Bowers or Dan Bailey? That's it, no other choices, no "I would've drafted someone else and signed Bailey as a UDFA", none of that. Two options, it's 2011, second round, you can hand in a card for Bowers or Bailey, which one do you hand in?


One, it's based on this "faith and prayer" that Aguayo was picked, according to your own logic. My point is that drafting a kicker based on your "evaluation" of him is an even more far-fetched form of faith than most. Drafting a kicker high is the FO equivalent of worshiping Xenu. It's not just faith, it's faith in something particularly goofy.

Two, my point is that not-bad kickers are friggin' EVERYWHERE. Familiarize yourself with the term "standard deviation." The standard deviation on kicker production is minute. More to the point, because of point #1, there is no relationship between draft position for the kickers whose production exceeds that deviation and the ones who lower it.

Your last comments demonstrate you're so far behind in this discussion there's almost no point in talking to you. This has been explained to you time and time again. Let me say it slowly:

There is NO relationship between where kickers are drafted and their chances for success. NONE.
There IS a DEMONSTRABLE relationship between where EVERY OTHER POSITION is drafted and their chances for success.

If you can get your head around that, you can start to keep up.

And your bullshit loaded Justin Tucker question proves my point, because he's the best kicker in the league and nobody wanted him on draft day. You know the best undrafted end from that class? Jacquies Smith. How often do you see an undrafted PASS RUSHER as the best from his draft class? There's my point.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6236
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 275 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby MJW » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:41 pm

It's honestly pretty simple.

We cut Connor barth for making 23 of 28 in 2015. We could have kept him for no draft compensation and a contract pretty darn near the league minimum.

How much BETTER would Aguayo have had to be to justify upgrading the opportunity cost from, essentially, nothing but a roster spot, to a 2nd round pick? THIS is the question I don't believe OBP ever asked themselves. Because if they HAD, they'd never have made this pick. If he makes a couple more kicks is he worth it? **** no. How about if he makes all of them? Maybe, maybe not. It's still paying a 2nd round pick for 5 makes. But that's probably where the conversation has to START before his defenders can polish up this turd. And Aguayo was never going to hit 28 of 28, so it doesn't matter anyway.

There are no grounds to justify this pick besides, "Life is randomness, might as well do whatever."
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6236
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 275 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Doctor » Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:38 am

Avoiding the Bailey or Bowers question I see.

2-5 makes can very easily be the difference between playoffs or not. Heck, it's often been the difference between championship or not.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Naismith » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:14 am

Doctor wrote:Avoiding the Bailey or Bowers question I see.


It's because it's a silly question. Without perfect hindsight (or even with half-perfect hindsight of knowing how Bailey does as a pro), you always take the shot at a pass rusher, even if he's a long shot, because the value of the gamble at that position is much higher than the value of the "sure thing" at kicker.

If the question is who you take with the knowledge of how they turn out, the answer is neither of them because there are much better options to use your second round pick on.

And even with the ability to know exactly how they turned out in their specific situations, I'd bet the majority of teams would still take Bowers in a re-do on the chance that a different setting and different coaching could shape his career differently.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Kress » Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:04 pm

Comparing pass rushers with kickers is silly. Pass rushers are working against someone else. It's a different beast than in college when some guys could just out-athlete the other guy. This is just kicking. You versus the goal posts. Kick it.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby MJW » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:13 pm

Doctor wrote:Avoiding the Bailey or Bowers question I see.



That's because it's a ridiculous question built on multiple logical fallacies. If I'd said, "Any second round pick ever is better than any kicker ever drafted," it would mean something.

Besides, Justin Tucker went UNDRAFTED, which is kind of my point here.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6236
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 275 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby MJW » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:18 pm

I have an exercise that I do, and you'd be surprised how well it puts things in perspective:

I will do a Bucs re-draft of three or four consecutive past drafts. Say, 2009-2012 or something, and I'll try to use each pick as efficiently as possible to construct the best possible roster. I do this to better understand positional values.

Do you know what is ALWAYS true when I do this? Two things. One, it NEVER makes sense to draft a kicker before the 7th round, because there are always 2-3 excellent undrafted ones. Two, it NEVER makes sense to draft a running back in the 1st or 2nd rounds, because there are ALWAYS a bunch of excellent ones who go later or undrafted.

Try it sometime, see if you come to a different conclusion. These are two positions that WAY above all others produce excellent NFL players late in the draft, or as UFAs. This is when I started to figure out that I basically never want to use a high pick on a back, and certainly not on a kicker.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6236
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 275 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Sammich » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:43 am

Doctor wrote:
MY point was simple. That many here like yourself hold kicker to a stupid standard of HOF or not worth it. And that somehow rolling the dice on another position is "better" simply just because. Tell me how a bust safety is better than a bust kicker? Or the way some of you make it sound, how is a bust safety better than a not-HOF second round kicker? You guys make it sound like it is. It is not. Now, unfortunately we will never know who we would have drafted if it wasn't Roberto, so we have no way of "seeing if it was the right call" or know if the "other" player would have been a bust, serviceable, average or elite. We simply don't know who it would've been. But just for fun lets assume it was Bell like MJW and many other seem to think. Lets just follow it through, see how Bell's career goes.




A "bust" at safety is better than a "bust" at kicker because of the rest of the roster. A young player at any other position besides kicker that is having trouble can be hidden on the roster or given another role. They can be given time to develop while backing up someone else. Maybe they can help on special teams. They may never be good enough to be a starter, but decent depth does have some value. Teams carry only one kicker and sink or swim with him. You cannot hide them.
Sammich
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:52 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Doctor » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:53 am

Naismith wrote:
Doctor wrote:Avoiding the Bailey or Bowers question I see.


It's because it's a silly question. Without perfect hindsight (or even with half-perfect hindsight of knowing how Bailey does as a pro), you always take the shot at a pass rusher, even if he's a long shot, because the value of the gamble at that position is much higher than the value of the "sure thing" at kicker.

If the question is who you take with the knowledge of how they turn out, the answer is neither of them because there are much better options to use your second round pick on.

And even with the ability to know exactly how they turned out in their specific situations, I'd bet the majority of teams would still take Bowers in a re-do on the chance that a different setting and different coaching could shape his career differently.

In hindsight. The FO took a chance without hindsight on Roberto. Still left to be seen how it goes, but if he gets it together this year and goes on to have a ten year career with us, that's a great use of a second rounder. The ludicrous idea that he needs to be a HOF or bust is stupid. The idea that "you always take the risk at another position" is stupid too. A dependable kicker is very very much a part of a championship roster, people should know that. At the end of the day, like with all players on your roster, it doesn't matter where the hell they were taken in the draft it matters what they do for you and how they produce. If Aguayo works out well I really don't care if we spent a 3rd and 4th to get him.
Image
User avatar
Doctor
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:54 pm
Location: Out of the Office. Will return next Fall.
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Buc2 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:57 am

Is there any way I can unread this thread?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7229
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 707 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Buccaneers signing Nick Folk

Postby Kress » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:39 pm

Buc2 wrote:Is there any way I can unread this thread?



Meth?
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 2713
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Previous

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: .irishHITMAN4rent, Agent Orange, BacksidePursuit, bahamian:bucfan, Baidu [Spider], BayAreaBucFan25, billsfan1212, Bing [Bot], Bootz2004, Bucs2theSB, Cheb, Cream Sickle, DanTurksGhost, dcbucsfan, Deja Entendu, DominatingD55, doooshnzl, Heidguy, ImAWalkingCorpse, Konatown, mdb1958, Mex-Buc, Miller4Prez64, Moozician, murdock, Naismith, real bucs fan, Seamen, Selmon Rules, Super K, tjax03, Truebuc, UbuntuBuc and 45 guests